Dear Marriage Supporter,
They expected you and me to fold after the election — you know that, right?
But let me promise you something: when the going gets tough, NOM gets going!
NOM is on the march for marriage!
The Supreme Court is holding oral arguments on March 26-27. The future of marriage hangs in the balance.
With DOMA, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not Congress has the power to define marriage for the federal government, or whether a minority of states can force all U.S. taxpayers to treat gay unions as marriages.
With the Prop 8 case, the judges are being asked to decide whether the people of this great nation have the right to define marriage as one man and one woman — or whether our right to vote is going to be stripped away, the guarantees of democracy made meaningless, gay marriage inserted into our Constitution and a distorted view of marriage imposed on this great nation.
Now is the time to step up to fight for marriage!
Earlier this week, we announced a rally we're planning in our nation's capital on March 26th, 2013: www.MarriageMarch.org.
And already you've responded!
On the March for Marriage page on Facebook, pro-marriage supporters around the country are sharing their plans to attend.
One person said: "Marriage March is on a TUESDAY. How PRO-marriage are you? Are you willing to rearrange your schedule to attend this event? Would you choose to drive or fly? Would you spend the night or pop in, pop out? I attended Glenn Beck's 'Restore Honor' Rally a few years ago, my first time to ever visit our nation's capital. It was an experience I'll never forget. Married 36 years in July, perhaps we'll take an early anniversary trip to DC!"
A second said: "Lord willing count [us] in. We can definitely do that."
A third: "Looking at the calendar here and going to re-arrange to BE THERE!!"
A fourth: "This is Holy Week, still Lent. I don't like to travel, but I'm willing to do this as part of my Lenten Sacrifice, if I can find others to go with me. I'll start looking right away."
A fifth: "COUNT ME IN!"
Count me in, too!
MarriageADA Defending Marriage in Law & Society
NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation League filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to uphold the rights of you and me to work to defend what we hold dear in the democratic arena our forefathers gave us. I'll send along that brief for you to read as soon as it's posted on the SCOTUS's website.
Also this week, MADA released a video from Canada, explaining why we fight so hard and refuse to give up: our own rights are at stake, as this Canadian father, Dr. Steve Tourloukis, found out.
The biggest of the big lies in the marriage debate is that this will not affect you, your children, or your grandchildren! MADA will continue to expose that lie — with your help! Please share this important video with your family and friends.
Marriage Fights Continue Around The Nation
NOM is on the march, including deep in the bluest of blue states, to be your voice for our shared values.
We have tough fights going on right now, and once again we are not backing down, we are not giving up!
In Rhode Island, the battle shifts to the Senate, where the fate of marriage sits on a knife's edge. Even the Providence Journal ran the headline, "Senate Appears Divided on Same-Sex Marriage Bill." Eleven senators have co-signed a bill to redefine marriage, while eleven others have signed a resolution to send the question to the people.
Click here to fight back in Rhode Island.
In Illinois, just three weeks ago, your phone calls and emails shook the political world, blocking what many considered an "inevitable" bill from passing same-sex marriage in the lame duck session.
It was a tremendous victory, but our work is far from over...
When the newly elected legislature took office on January 10th, Democrats increased their majorities in both houses, and immediately introduced a new same-sex marriage bill.
Click here to fight back in Illinois!
In Indiana, gay marriage lobbyists and their allies in the media are once again ramping up their campaigns of disinformation by attempting to persuade House and Senate leadership to postpone a vote for a state marriage amendment.
The amendment stands a very good chance of passing if brought to a vote, but legislators like Senate President Pro Tem David Long (R-Fort Wayne) aren't being clear about whether they will bring the issue up for a vote.
Click here to let your Indiana legislators know: you want the right to vote for marriage!
And in Wyoming, you already helped win an amazing victory for marriage!
THANK YOU to our supporters in Wyoming who took action last week and thereby helped defeat a bill to redefine marriage by a close 5-4 vote in committee.
The media has been attempting to divert attention away from this victory for marriage supporters and instead focus on a domestic partnership bill in the Wyoming House.
But guess what? This morning we learned they failed. The House voted 35-24 against the domestic partnership bill.
NOM is on the march for marriage!
Finally, a France update: As you know, the French people turned out in a massive rally of protest just two weeks ago. The police's early estimates were 340,000 — but the photos clearly show the actual turnout was closer to a million.
Meanwhile the pro-gay marriage forces in France held their own rally on Sunday. The police said just 125,000 turned out. Just one-third the size, even by the police's account, of the huge pro-marriage rallies, as Agence France Presse honestly reported (and American media just ignored):
"Police estimated that about 125,000 people had turned out for Sunday's rally, while organisers put the figure at 400,000. The turnout was higher than at previous marches but still lower than the number of people who protested against same-sex marriage on January 13."
Something is stirring in the hearts of brave men and women all over the world.
Thank you for being a part of a great movement for the rights of children, for common sense, and for the courage to stand against the winds of fashion.
I'm so proud to know you and to stand with you for God's truth about marriage.
This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.
25 Comments
Marching alongside NOM will be the Westboro Baptist Church, who are equally concerned that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of gay marriage.
Also in favor of gay marriage is NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association.)
Hmmm.. really? I don't ever see NOM supporters picketing military funerals with hate signs. if you have, let's see some evidence of that happening.
Inferring a lot from what Chris said, Quinn. Nothing was said that NOM supported WBC, just that WBC is concerned about gay marriage winning and that they will be marching.
If the opposition will cease suggesting an association between NOM and WBC, I'll stop pointing out the association between them and NAMBLA.
Well, at least they are concerned about one thing we should all be concerned about.
OMG, the HORROR! Gay people commiting to each other. Whatever will happen next?
Sorry but the radical gay agenda will never b accepted by normal people.
Quinn-
Asking a country to recognize a legal marriage and to receive the federal benefits that come with that recognition hardly seems like a radical agenda. Could you please elaborate as to how this is "radical"? Could you please tell me how two gay people making a commitment to one another negatively affects you and your marriage?
Nobody is stopping perverts from committing to each other Chris. People are just standing up against those who are demanding these perverts be declared moral.
Right minded folks could no sooner do that then they could accept a dog is a cat, a bird is a snake, the moon is the sun, up is down, wet is dry, man is woman...
Randy - You are hardly what I would consider a right minded person. I have no objection to you committing yourself to someone else although I must say I have intense pity for that unfortunate person. I have even greater pity for any offspring that may result from your commitment. Your hateful thinking will never be declared moral.
@Chris
"Asking a country to recognize a legal marriage and to receive the federal benefits that come with that recognition hardly seems like a radical agenda."
Federal benefits can come without redefining Marriage. Change the law to include more benefits which all states with civil unions allow.
" Could you please elaborate as to how this is "radical"?"
Explain how it's not radical. Changing a long standing tradition that has for the longest time worked for the benefit of mankind is very radical.
"Could you please tell me how two gay people making a commitment to one another negatively affects you and your marriage?"
Anyone can make a commitment to one another, but it takes a man and a woman to raise a child. Your question is the wrong one as it is based on the assumption that it will hurt people. It changes the way society looks at male and female. Men and women are inherently different and Marriage serves to establish this understanding for children. Taking that away-whether intended or not is irrelevant-tells children that they don't need a mother nor a father to grow up properly-statistics tell a different story-and that any combination of the two will work.
Randy-
Referring to gays as "perverts" and "amoral" does nothing to further the discussion; rather, it shows just how deeply motivated NOM's base is to prevent gay marriage from happening. More importantly, it shows WHY NOM's base is fighting so hard to protect marriage. For this, I can only thank you.
Chris,
I did not make these miscreants perverts, immoral, or heathens, but that is what they are. You are going to have to change the meaning of nearly every word if you are to succeed at lending an appearance of acceptability to this depravity.
But then only the most vulnerable amongst us will fall for that dirty little trick; which also happens to be the ones you prey on.
Randy-
So for you, it's not so much that marriage is about a man and a woman, but it's more of the fact that you disapprove of homosexuality in general, and think it is "immoral, perverted, and heathenistic". Not only that, but you seem to think gays and lesbians pray on the vulnerable. Once again I thank you for stating this; I really to wish you would testify in the Prop 8 trial. I'm sure the proponents of Prop 8 would love to have your testimony as to why it is needed in California.
Chris,
It is that I disapprove of changing the meaning of words so as to lend an appearance of respectability to depravity; changed so as to aid in the creation of willing victims who affirm the appropriateness of the crimes perpetrated against them.
Children should be protected; not fed to the Wolves.
I voted for Civil Unions here only to find I was played by an organized horde of decadents who viewed my sense of fairness as a weakness to be exploited.
Your side drew first blood; not me.
Randy-
When you use phrases such as "lend an appearance of respectability to depravity" regarding gay couples and their equal rights under law, or phrases such as "Creation of willing victims" and "crimes perpetrated against them" I find it very hard to believe you would vote for civil unions. It is cute that you seek to play the victim claiming one side drew blood first. The fact that you equate gay marriage to "Feeding children to wolves" just furthers the fact that you have a deep animus against gays and lesbians, lending even more doubt to your "I voted for Civil Unions" claim.
Chris, what are the essential features of the type of relationship you have in mind when you think of SSM?
Do these essentials make it into the law as legal requirements for those who'd SSM? If not, why not?
Also, you do realize that it is the SSM campaign, not marriage defenders, who bring the gay emphasis and try to use it to change the discussion from marriage to SSM.
The marriage idea is extrinsic to the entire range of one-sexed scenariois -- gay or not, sexualized or not, twosomes or moresomes, related or not.
The SSM idea, that is what you are on about, so go ahead and state its essentials and let the chips fall where they may.
Chairm, what are the essential features of the type of relationship you have in mind when you think of marriage, period?
The only requirements for marriage in most states are that you be at least the age of consent in that state, not be related to a first degree (although some make it to second degree), and not already be married. In many states, you have to be of opposite sex but in at least 8, that is not a requirement.
Nowhere in that list do we talk about any of the so-called markers that NOM uses to defend traditional marriage.
So tell me, Chairm, why do you bleat so much about these essential features when none are required for a hetero marriage?
@Teri
"The only requirements for marriage in most states are that you be at least the age of consent in that state"
Then where do you draw the line as to what's appropriate?
"not be related to a first degree"
If consent is all that's required, what difference does it make to you if the parties involved are related? Aren't you invading the bedroom like leftists accuse their opponents of doing?
"So tell me, Chairm, why do you bleat so much about these essential features when none are required for a hetero marriage?"
Just because the culture neglects it, doesn't mean that Marriage isn't about tying children to their mother and father. The simple fact that only a woman is biologically capable of carrying a child to term speaks volumes of the inherent differences between the two genders. Does society or the culture acknowledge 100% of the time? Of course not, but that doesn't provide in any way a basis for redefining what Marriage is. It's an obligation to society, not a "freedom" that the left loves espouse.
Teri, your answer is that there are no essentials for the type of relationship you have in mind for SSM.
The bride-plus-groom requirement is in the law but you objected to that essential feature of marriage before it was abolished in those few places where now you say the law is right.
Consent has not been a trump card for other types of relationships that are ineligible to marry. Sexual attraction has not been a trump card. Nor has being above the age limit been a trump card. So these are not essentials but they are legal requirements that discriminate, justly, based on that to which the bride and groom consent.
The lines drawn for eligibility and ineligibility are drawn around the core meaning of marriage. This is expressed in marriage law in ways you have attacked.
1) Integration of the sexes as per the bride-plus-groom requirement. The typical marriage amendment, for instance, reaffirms this "union of a man and a woman" is an adult relationship that is two-sexedThe sexual basis for consummation and adultery and so fortis complementarily-sexed as per the second aspect at the core of this type of relationship.
2) Provision for responsible procreation as per the marital presumption of paternity to which all who consent to marry give their consent. This has a sexual basis, in the law of marriage, that is clearly two-sexed and not one-sexed. Society also gives its consent as per the most vigorously enforced legal presumptions we have. Responsible procreation is cited in the legislative findings that were spelled out in DOMA, for example, and have featured in the justification for lines drawn against polygamy and against relationship types comprised of persons too closely related.
3) The coherent whole (ie the foundational social institution) that makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts -- nameley the combination of sex integration and provision for responsible procreation. The marriage idea is this core meaning. Societal regard of this type of relationship is the basis for A) the special status that is marital status and B) the boundaries for eligibility and ineligibility. If the law may include a preferential status and called it marriage, then, it is required to distinguish it from other types of relationships. So boundaried follow the core, not the other way around. And government supports but does not create that core; the law does not arbitrarily assign special status. It must be justified prior to the law itself.
So the essentials of marriage are on the table.
You, Teri, still owe this discussion the essentials (if any) for the type of relationship you have in mind for SSM. The lack of the other sex appears to be an essential feature and so that means sex segregation. That lack precludes a sexual basis for procreation (much less responsible procreation) so the disunity of motherhood and fatherhood, as far as the presence of children enter this, is an essential but first indifference to the birthright of children is an essential. SSM could not be imposed otherwise.
SSM is not foundational to civil society. Nor is it distinguished as a type of sexual relationship ... there is no legal requirement that entails adult consent to same sex sexual behavior ... something that your own insistence has highlighted, Teri, as you think it essential to split sexual behavior from justification for the law regarding this type of relationship. Same sex sexual attraction is not a legal requirement for those who'd SSM where it is available. So that is not an essential of this type of relationship.
So why the age limit ... based solely on this nonsexual type of one-sexed relationship? Pointing at consent is insufficient unless consent is a trump card on its own. Likewise relatedness would be subordinate to adult consent. Why hold it against people born that way?
Anyway, you are free to disagree on the significance of the marriage idea, but you demand a special status (marital status is a special status) for the SSM idea. The onus is on you to justify that status. And based on that proposed justification, justify boundaries. Don't borrow from the union of husband and wife, because you object to the man-woman requirement and to the sexual basis for that type of relationship. Focus on the one-sexed type of relationship you wish to treat better than all other types of one-sexed relationships.
Or shruge because your SSM rhetoric has ill-equipped you to deal forthrightly with the lack of essentials for the type of relationship you promote with your gay emphasis.
By the way, Teri there is no such thing as 'hetero marriage'. Marriage is two-sexed, has a sexual basis that is two-sexed, and integrates motherhood and fatherhood. It is unitive and procreative in kind.
Your remark proposes there is such a thing that is 'homo marriage'. That must mean it is segregative by sexual attraction (either male sexual attraction or female sexual attraction) and segregative by sex (men or women) and segregative by group identity (gay purity is emphasized but maybe you think homo is more inclusive). So why entrench a special status for homo and why deny to related people what you demand for others?
Is the segregative of such great societal significance that the integrative union of husband and wife must be treated as segregative? Marriage unites the sexes and it integrates male and female sexual attraction and it integrates regardless of group identity politics. This is what makes the marital relationship special. It also justifies boundaries.
The SSM idea, not so much.
Readers might note that Teri asked and then received an answer.
Teri also made assertions that did not answer the actual query made regarding the essentials features of the type of relationship she has in mind for SSM.
I think her comments amount to the concession that she does not believe in her own argument regarding legal requirements. Instead, she depends on attack the marriage law with argumentation that, when turned on her own SSM idea, undermine her pro-SSM position rather blatantly. So her concession is one of self-defeat.
Yet her obstinancy is unbound by reason.
I repeat for Chris, whose comments are full of certitude:
Chris, what are the essential features of the type of relationship you have in mind when you think of SSM?
Do these essentials make it into the law as legal requirements for those who'd SSM? If not, why not?
I think Teri/Chrishave no real answer to offer. So the rhetoric fills-in their void.